Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Canada’s fossil fuel industry has recently put citizen outreach at the centre of its political strategy. This is manifest in a public outreach campaign known as Canada’s Energy Citizens (CEC), undertaken by the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP).Analysis This article uses interviews with CEC organizers and members to demonstrate how participation subsidies are used to enlist members. While much scholarly literature assumes corporate grassroots campaigns will hide the use of professional public relations labour and industry ties, findings show instead that CEC foreground its members’ professional backgrounds and connections to the oil sector. Conclusions and implications Transparency does ideological work in the campaign, framing pro-oil advocacy as a licit social aim, and public relations labour as a normative model of citizen political participation.Contexte L’industrie des combustibles fossiles au Canada a récemment centré sa stratégie politique sur la sensibilisation des citoyens. Par exemple, l’Association canadienne des producteurs pétroliers (ACPP) a mené une campagne de sensibilisation publique du nom de « Canada’s Energy Citizens » (CEC).Analyse Cet article a recours à des entrevues avec des organisateurs et membres de CEC afin de démontrer dans quelle mesure cette campagne de sensibilisation utilise des subventions de participation afin de recruter ses membres. Plusieurs recherches savantes font la supposition que les campagnes locales menées par les entreprises ont tendance à cacher leurs liens avec l’industrie et leur recours aux services de relations publiques, mais les données de cette étude démontrent que CEC, au contraire, affiche les liens professionnels de ses membres au secteur pétrolier.Conclusions et implications Cette transparence sert la campagne d’un point de vue idéologique, présentant l’appui à l’industrie pétrolière comme un objectif social légitime, et les relations publiques comme moyen d’encourager l’engagement politique des citoyens.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".